Hacked Emails Show Coca-Cola Aims To Influence Hillary Clinton And The Media

Hacked emails from Coca-Cola executives show how they worked to influence Hillary Clinton and others. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images

Good reporting revealed that Coca-Cola funds researchers, health organizations, nutrition professionals and community groups in an effort to blame obesity on a lack of physical activity, rather than diet. Hacked emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff, posted recently on DCLeaks, reveal that Coke works hard to influence politicians, journalists and bloggers, as well.

Russ Greene, who blogs for CrossFit was among the first to review the hacked emails and report on Coke’s apparent strategy to influence Clinton and others. Ninjas for Health followed up with a Medium post, outlining Coke’s worldwide strategy to kill soda taxes. Politico’s Helena Evich outlined the email trail that demonstrated Coke’s cozy relationship with the Clinton campaign. (Her complete Politico PRO post is behind a paywall.) Highlights of the reporting include:

Coke uses its own consultants who have strong ties to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, to try to influence campaign policy. When Clinton announced her support for the Philadelphia soda tax, a series of emails show that Clyde Tuggle, Coke’s Chief Public Affairs and Communications Officer, emailed a Coke communications consultant Capricia Marshall, who has also consulted for the Clinton campaign, to try to reverse Clinton’s position. An agitated Tuggle wrote on April 20, 2016:

Really??? After all we have done. I hope this has been falsely reported. Pls give me some talking points for Muhtar [Muhtar Kent, Coke’s CEO] in the am. Thanks!

An email sent the very next day from Katherine Rumbaugh, VP of Government Relations for Coca-Cola North America reassured jittery Coke executives that Clinton wasn’t going to pursue the soda tax issue.

[W]e’ve confirmed that there is no continued conversation around beverage taxes today and in future engagements – campaign is not going to drive conversation here or weigh in further,” Rumbaugh wrote. “Also, Jake Sullivan, [Clinton’s senior policy adviser], confirmed that they are not driving this from a policy POV. We’re also working on how to walk this back.

Public health advocates will have their work cut out for them when it comes to soda taxes, if Mrs. Clinton wins the election.

Coke sent employees to take notes at Marion Nestle’s Sydney, Australia talk on the soda industry. Dr. Nestle of New York University is the author of Soda Politics and an outspoken critic of the soda industry.

Learning of Coke’s interest in her talks, Nestle posted her full February-March, 2016 Australia media and speaking itinerary, in case the company wanted to get additional transcripts.

Coke fretted over the social media response to a report, issued by Center for Science in the Public Interest. The report focused on how Coke markets to children in spite of its pledge not to. From Coke’s Karyn Harrington, May 16, 2016:

Overall, the report did not get much traction in social media, although volume was slightly elevated among the key health and wellness influencers we track…

Coke discussed its local, state and international strategies to defeat soda taxes and protect its interests including influencing media, astroturf coalitions, lobbying, casting doubt on science and tracking social media influencers.

When Philadelphia’s recently passed soda tax was introduced, Coca-Cola wasted no time in preparing for battle. From Coke’s Lauren Craig on February 29, 2016:

An industry led, broad-based coalition met today to begin implementing a comprehensive campaign response to the tax proposal. The coalition, having faced beverage tax proposals advanced by the previous administration, is well coordinated and is moving quickly. Coalition efforts include council engagement, continued research and message development, stakeholder outreach, and plans for proactive and reactive media…

From my blogger’s point of view, I felt particularly uneasy reading emails detailing the company’s interactions with the media, like this one written by Coke’s Ben Sheidler on May 5, 2016, about the Philadelphia soda tax fight:

In an effort to help shape the story and insert balance, there have been a number of conversations with Mike [Esterl, Business Reporter for the Wall Street Journal] and the local anti-tax coalition, ABA [American Beverage Association], TCCC [The Coca-Cola Company] and other local voices, including the Teamsters and small business owners. Earlier today, TCCC had an off-the-record conversation with Mike encouraging him to include local voices opposing the tax rather than overly simplifying the situation with the premise that this tax is a fight between “big soda” and the Mayor’s Pre-K program. In addition to TCCC’s conversation, ABA and the local coalition on the ground provided Mike with small business owners who oppose the tax so they can offer their perspectives…

There’s absolutely no indication that Esterl was improperly influenced by Coke’s outreach. Reporters often have off-the-record conversations with sources. Yet it’s disturbing that Coke, in its own words, tried to “shape the story and insert balance.” That’s the reporter’s job.

I was even mentioned in an email chain by Coke’s Karyn Harrington, although not by name, on May 16, 2016. I had reached out to Coca-Cola’s media relation’s team to get the company’s reaction to CSPI’s report on how Coke markets to kids:

Forbes: A contributor to CSPI's report, who also blogs regularly on Forbes.com, reached out for comment. We have been working to build a relationship with the blogger and, in a background conversation, inquired whether she would disclose her connection to the report in her post. No timing yet on when her blog will publish.

In fairness, the Coca-Cola spokeswoman I conversed with, Kirsten Witt Webb, was professional and made no attempt to influence the content of my article. She did ask if I would disclose that I had sent a photo to CSPI for inclusion in the report. I assured her I would.